Effect of detention on children

The post Effect of detention on children appeared first on Free Movement.

Immigration detention dehumanises not only the detainee but also every person who deals with it. It is a poison that infects us all. The professionals who deal with detainees and their families develop coping mechanisms. We convince ourselves that detention is necessary, that there is no alternative, that it is an inevitable part of the process, that the individuals affected deserve it, that they will get over it, that they are not like us and don’t feel family separation and deprivation of liberty in the same way that we would, that the kids are adaptable little things and won’t really notice. Most of all, we learn to dissociate. The effect of unknowably long immigration detention at the whim of unknown bureaucrats is simply too awful to contemplate for more than a short time.

Children are often the unrecognised victims of immigration detention. The detention of a parent has an absolutely devastating effect on the children concerned. Perhaps to protect themselves from thinking about the effect of their actions, Home Office decision makers and immigration judges hearing bail applications will routinely turn a blind eye to the impact of separation on the detainee and also the detainee’s children, even in the cases where such evidence is available.

A new report by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) explodes the myth. BID reveal systematic disregard of child safeguarding duties by the now defunct UK Border Agency. The most powerful words in the report are those of the individuals affected by detention. This power is impossible to convey in a press release or even the executive summary. The best way to understand the impact of detention is to draw on some of the case studies, quotes and images in the report.

Case study: Beth and Daniel

Beth’s grandfather, who was caring for her and her disabled brother Daniel during their mother’s detention, became seriously ill and was admitted to hospital three times. Beth had to stop attending school to care for her brother and grandfather and missed her GCSE exams. She also had to deal with proceedings which were started to evict the family due to rent arrears.

Beth found it extremely difficult to look after her seven year old brother, was has very limited motor control and severe behavioural problems. During their mother, Christine’s, detention, he was made subject to a child protection plan, deemed to be at risk of emotional and physical harm and referred to Child and Adult Mental Health Services. A Children’s Services assessment found that:

‘Daniel has found it very difficult being separated from his mother, he is keen for her to return home and often states that she is “coming home today” when she is not and becomes upset when he realises this is not the case.

[A] concerned neighbour rang to report that Daniel was playing alone in the road at 8pm, he was seen to fall and lay in the road, which is a bus route… he walks into people’s houses and has poor awareness of danger and his own safety.’

Two months after his mother entered detention Children’s Services received a report that Daniel had been hit by a car.

Despite receiving reports about the welfare of these children, the Border Agency detained their mother for 160 days before she was released on bail by the Tribunal. She subsequently successfully appealed the Border Agency’s decision to deport her.

All that, and the mother was then released from detention on bail and won her appeal. This is all too common. Even where it is clear from the outset that the detention will be prolonged or that removal will ultimately be impossible, immigration detention is effectively used as a punishment that the Home Office thinks will magically deter future illegal immigration.

Some quotes from carers about the effect on the children:

‘Their dad told me that the eldest used to cry, regular at night before she go to bed, asking “when is mummy coming home?” There were a lot of questions that they were asking that I couldn’t answer. They would say “Oh so you don’t love us, why you staying away from us so long?”’

‘My daughter wakes up crying that she’s dreamt her daddy’s at home, and daddy takes her to school. And then she wakes up and daddy’s not there. I want to cry now just talking about it.’

‘She didn’t want to eat; you had to force her to eat. She just start crying “mummy, mummy”… you know, the constant crying. Whenever she hear the door open she would go to the door, knocking on the door saying “mummy.”’

‘At times she would sit by herself and break down and cry. When you asked her what is the matter, she say “when is my mum coming I want to go home with her.”’

And finally a quote from one of the parents themselves:

‘I never knew people could take your kids away out your life, just like that. They don’t know the pain that you feel in your stomach, you feel it in your guts. Being with my kids now is like I’m alive again.’

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Chapti/Bibi on pre-entry English tests

It has been over a year since the High Court heard a challenge to the introduction of pre-entry English language tests for spouses and partners (and fiancés and proposed civil partners). It was argued in Chapti & Ors, R (on the application of) v SSHD & Ors [2011] EWHC 3370 (Admin) that the changes to the Immigration Rules were unlawful by reference to Article 8, 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.

In the High Court, Beatson J held that the amendment to the Rules did interfere with the right to respect for family life but that the interference was justified. The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging this finding of justification and the SSHD also argued on appeal disputing that there was actually an interference.

The Court of Appeal has now given judgment on 12 April 2013: Bibi v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 322 with the change of name seemingly arising out of the first claimants Mr and Mrs Chapti not pursuing an appeal.

The two remaining sets of appellants, Mr and Mrs Ali and Mr and Mrs Bibi, are married and in both cases, the wife is a British citizen. The husbands are foreign nationals and do not speak English. Mr Ali is Yemeni, has no formal education and is illiterate. It was also put forward that there is no approved test centre in Yemen which would provide tuition in English to the required level and further that the tests can only be taken online and Mr Ali has no computer skills. Mr Bibi is Pakistani and is educated but there is no approved test centre in the area in which he lives. The nearest ones are 115 and 141 km away and the couple have a young child. He too would need to learn computer skills before sitting the test.

Read full post here

PM told to explain benefits of EU immigration

The European Commissioner for Employment has strongly criticised UK Prime Minister David Cameron. On 25th March, Mr Cameron made a speech in which he stated that his government would prevent people who come to the UK from the European Union (and the European Economic Area) from claiming benefits, from being housed in social housing and from using the National Health Service until they have lived and worked in the UK for a considerable period.

Read full post

Thousands to rally for immigrants’ path to citizenship

(Reuters) – Supporters of immigration reform are set to rally at the Capitol on Wednesday to back legislation that would include a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Read full post here

The launch of a report on the separation of migrant families.

• Wednesday 17 April 2013, 6-8pm
• Grand Committee , House of Commons, London SW1A OAA

Speakers:

• Maggie Atkinson – children’s commissioner for England
• Lisa Mandy – shadow children’s minister
• A mother who was separated from her child by immigration detention
• Sarah Campbell – author of the report

May announces government’s decision to split the UKBA

Article first published 26 March 2013 (Guardian)

May says agency will be split in two with separate immigration and law enforcement services under direct control of ministers.

Read full post here

An immigrant’s perspective on immigration

Article first published 26 March 2013 (Independent)

It wouldn’t be wrong to call London the immigrant capital of the world.

Read full post here

Anti-immigration policies damage economic growth

Olivia Boland, Chair of the Suffolk Chinese Family Welfare Association and graduate of OBV’s MP Shadowing Scheme believes that the UK’s anti-immigrant policies towards Chinese tourists is not only xenophobic, but detrimental to our economic growth.

Read full post here

Source: http://www.obv.org.uk

Cameron stakes out ground for next election

Article first published 24 March 2013 (Independent)

David Cameron will signal his determination to make immigration a key election issue tomorrow, when he pledges to stop new migrants getting taxpayer-funded homes as soon as they arrive in the UK.

Read full post here

Changes to UK immigration rules

Source: Re:locate

The written ministerial statement was laid in on 14 March 2013 in the House of Commons by Theresa May and in the House of Lords by Lord Henley. Here, immigration solicitors Hudson McKenzie detail the changes which the UK Border Agency will be making as a result of these statements.

Read full post here

Next Page »